Re: PC or Mac?

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Byron Q. Desnoyers Winmill replied:

>Michael J. Mahon wrote:
>> And a 200MHz Pentium is over three years old.
>
>Well over three years old, and there is no real reason to upgrade it,
>unless you believe that supporting a bloatware OS (such as XP, or OS X)
>is compelling.  Sure, OS X has a few interesting features but it will
>not radically change how we use our computers.

Agreed.  And that, of course, is a major problem that the PC
industry is facing--no compelling reason to upgrade--yet.

>> As long as the reason really _is_ compelling, then everybody wins,
>
>We still have to deal with the digital divide, and landfills.

Compared to cars, computers aren't much of a problem.  Monitors
are an issue, but LCD displays go a long way to solving that by
eliminating most of the material.

The digital divide is more cultural than economic.  Anyone can
get a ~166MHz Pentium PC with OS and leftover apps, a modem,
and a monitor for less than $50 in any city.  It is perfectly capable
of doing all the things you think are important, though it may have
some trouble with streaming video.  ;-)

>> a fundamental bottleneck [...] is the bandwidth to the typical home
>
>I think there are three problems which have to be dealt with for the
>next revolution: bandwidth to wireless devices, battery life, and
>screen resolution.  With these three advancements we will truely have
>access to global communications networks, at our convenience.

Wireless bandwidth awaits a new generation of provider and user
equipment, sort of like HDTV--a bit of a pump-priming exercise,
especially in the US, where we have a lot invested in the way things
are.  Even then, the available bandwidth for the masses will be very
limited.  Only microwave microcells can deliver truly significant
bandwidth wirelessly, and that's a generation beyond the generation
we still have years to wait for...  ;-(  Then there's still the issue of
the compelling app.

Battery life is a dandy, not likely to be solved soon.  More promising
are miniature fuel cells, but probably not before the end of the decade.

Screen resolution is essentially solved.  Cell phones don't have it--yet--
but you can buy heads-up "eyeglasses" with XVGA color--who really
needs more than that?  (BTW, the smaller the physical display (not
the image) the lower the power--a critical issue for portable power.)

>> If all you need is word processing and small spreadsheets, then
>> you have no motive to upgrade, and an Apple II will do very well.
>
>Should people who mould words, or small time number crunchers, have to
>upgrade simply to communicate their ideas?  You may not realise this,
>but it is becoming more difficult to put an Apple II online.  If the
>world goes 'broadband' then it will be difficult to get anything less
>than a Pentium or PowerMac online.

Yes, I am aware of this issue.  But as thes "classic" platforms
move more into the realm of the hobbyist and collector (aren't
they already, really?), then they can be "hosted" onto the net
by a more current machine.

I realize that this doesn't solve the problem of someone who wants
to use 1980's technology (alone) in a 21st century world, but then
have you tried to buy a diamond stylus for a turntable lately?  Or
get a new induction coil for a Model T?

>> machine is around $1000-$1200 [...] if one upgrades every three
>> years or so [...] that is less than $15 per month for digital
>> delights.  Not so expensive, really.
>
>Using about CAN$1000 for a low end system, and a three year upgrade
>cycle (on the hardware alone), that works out to CAN$0.92 per day
>(or $27.45 per month).  That does not include Internet access (around
>CAN$20 per month for dialup, CAN$40 for ADSL or cable).  That does
>not include software or repairs.  Your $15 per month is probably
>reaching $45 per month.  While that may not sound very expensive, it
>can mean a lot for people on a tight budget or for people who have
>priorities other than computers[*].
>
>[*] I am not claiming that I know any such people, but that there is
>    possible that such people exist.

(BTW, I made the careless mistake of using the 1981 dollars as
the basis for the monthly cost, which should have been in present
dollars:  about $45-$50.  So it appears that we are even closer in
our estimates.)

Yes, I agree that it is not as cheap as I would like, or as it could
be.  But most of my monthly computing budget is spent on DSL,
not computers or applications, with color ink cartridges running a
close second (my digital photography habit).

Market forces are determining the costs.  Telcos used to have to
write off switchgear over 25 years or more because of utility regulations,
but most Internet connection gear is being written off in less than five.
The result is higher rates.  By spreading the cost over more customers,
rates could be lowered substantially, but here, too, we have a chicken
and egg problem.  And Telcos have been less willing to forward price
their services in an uncertain market.

>> if the regular upgrade cycle [...] lengthens to once every four
>> years [...] then the PC industry will have to contract to half its
>> present size
>
>Huh?  The computer industry can still chase other markets.  There
>are a heck of a lot of people without computers you know.  There is
>also progress without an upgrade cycle: say somebody introduced a
>revolutionary new category of software which does not require CPU
>cycles.  In that case we are enhancing, not replacing.

Actually, the first-time market for computers has not contracted
much in the last couple of years.  The problem is not market saturation,
but the lack of any compelling need to upgrade existing users.  There
are lots of new users to be made, but eventually, the market will
consist of selling upgrades, as it is in the TV industry.

A revolutionary new class of software would be just the ticket to
solve all these problems!  Got any ideas?  Lots of people are trying
to invent it.  The sad truth is that there haven't been many great
ideas of late, with near-universal apeal.

It's much harder to base the continued existence of a market on
a continuous series of breakthroughs than on continuous evolutionary
improvement.  I love breakthroughs, but sometimes it's hard to hold
your breath while waiting for the next one!

-michael

 Email:  mjmahon@aol.com
 Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/